Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, yet the description still adds substantial non-obvious behavior: catalog profiles are labeled as catalog records rather than independent evidence, provider/commerce/tracking URLs are withheld with reasons, a fixed visit marker may be attached, and source dates are not re-verification. It also states what is excluded (unpublished drafts, internal review metadata), which is exactly the disclosure an agent could not get from structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads what is returned, then stacks caveats in short declarative clauses with no filler. Some phrasing is compressed to the point of opacity ('provider/evidence commerce/tracking URLs'), which costs a bit of clarity for the brevity gained.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers return contents, exclusions, URL withholding, and date semantics, and an output schema exists so return shapes need not be spelled out. The only real hole for a nested-object, enum-bearing tool is the unexplained locale parameter and its default behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It partially compensates by explaining where 'kind' and 'slug' come from (discovery output), but the 'locale' parameter and its enum of eight values go entirely unaddressed in both schema and description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Opens with a specific verb and enumerated resources: 'Retrieve stored field claims, source provenance and recorded limitations for one AI product.' The phrase 'for one AI product' implicitly contrasts with compare_ai_products, but neither sibling is named, so an agent must infer the boundary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Use kind and slug returned by discovery' gives an input-sourcing hint that implies the discover_ai_products prerequisite, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over compare_ai_products, or of any precondition beyond argument provenance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.